I’m defending the idea that you need to know all of the facts before jumping to conclusions and pointing out alternative scenarios that would be possible that would make the shooting justified.
Why are you so interested in attacking the officer with minimal facts surrounding the reasons why the officer was there doing what she was doing?
One of the problems we have in our country is the easy accusations that can be levelled at everyone for everything, to the great destruction of reputations and lives. No one is ever patient enough to allow the facts to be learned before passing judgement. I object to that, especially in this kind of scenario.
Obviously, if the shooting was not justified by any kind of self defense of law enforcement purpose, it should be dealt with accordingly, but we don’t know enough, and I am not willing to trash another human being without knowing more, that’s all.
Sorry if that sounds unreasonable.
How was an officer in any danger from a chained dog 30 feet away?
The dog could not get to the officer. The dog did not bite the officer.
The officer was not even called to that residence. The cop was at the neighbor’s house—not the house of the resident who called the cops in the first place.